Comments

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/11/03/obama-exacerbates-nations-divisions/trackback/

At one time I thought Obama was a nice enough man, and in spite of his liberal leanings I thought his heart was in the right place.

But through the campaign season and his first year in office Obama gave me nothing but the narcissist vibe.

Obama to me is the guy who thinks more highly of himself than he really is, and who wants to be president not because he wants to do the job, but because he wants to add it to his resume.

I really at this point can’t stand the petulant, narcissistic, childish and incompetent man. My fear is that he will win on Tuesday and drive my country-the one I love-straight off the cliff.

I can’t afford for my energy and off prices to go up any higher and I can’t afford for my healthcare to get more expensive (just found out this month healthcare is going up again-thank you Obamacare) and I really can’t afford Obama another 4 years.

But hey my really expensive healthcare plan will provide me with free birth control pills that I do not need.

Obama embodies the already deep and IMHO irreconcilable divisions in an increasingly dis-United States. Anyone who remembers the 8 Bush years has to recall the constant torrent of vitriol. Obama has taken advantage of the fissures in our country, culture and civilization, but he did not create them.

And if Romney wins, I cannot see how he would be able to heal them. John Edwards was half right, when he said there were Two Americas. Just not the ones he thought.

It’s not popular to say it, but it seems to me to come down to Historic America vs The Multicultural Managerial Therapy State. Even more unpopularly, the primary issue is race. Read the stats on voting patterns and it’s pretty clear.

Before Levi says something stupid, while the problems started when Bush was in office, Obama was elected to fix them, and he hasn’t done that. He even said that he shouldn’t be reelected if he fails to fix the problems. So he can no longer run against Bush; everything is his responsibility now.

I am one of the biggest Bush critics around here, but just to be clear: The number one problem was the housing bubble. Which started under the Clinton administration. And, which Bush tried to fix – when Bush tried to rein in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agencies, only to be thwarted by Democrats.

Also, although Bush did increase domestic spending for six years rather more than he should have, the spending & deficits really accelerated when the Democrat congress was elected in 2006/7. Finally, the Greenspan Fed with its 1% interest rates was a huge contributor to the problems… and Greenspan had bipartisan support, going back decades.

So “the problems started when Bush was in office”… and before… and partially against where Bush was trying to lead, with the worst elements strongly supported by Democrats.

Barack Obama’s attempts to community organize nationally has backfired time & time again; the United States is not the cesspools of Chicago corruption. Therefore, in time, Barack Obama’s carefully constructed facade has shattered to reveal a petty, petulant, Marxist ideologue who wants to fast track America into a Communist nation.

Obama & the other Obama Democrats did not count on the resistance of the American people; it’s why ObamaTax took the better part of almost 2 years to be rammed into law, although we told the Democrats we wanted nothing to with the takeover.

Worse, the Democrats drank their own Kool-Aide. They believed they would be in power for 40 years. Yet Obama’s brittle coalition shattered the moment when Obama signed ObamaTax into law. As a result, Obama expended his political capital, lost 63 House Democrats in the 2010 midterms while signs everywhere was pointing resistance: Obama’s senate seat went to a Republican, Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat, & two blue states voted in Republican governors.

Obama’s implosion began in April of this year, but the signs have been building since 2009.

I am one of the biggest Bush critics around here, but just to be clear: The number one problem was the housing bubble. Which started under the Clinton administration. And, which Bush tried to fix – when Bush tried to rein in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agencies, only to be thwarted by Democrats.

That is true. However, I was referring to when the economy actually crashed. Although that makes Obama’s blaming Bush even more ridiculous (if he wants to blame a past president for his problems, it should be Clinton).

Also, didn’t Bush have a Republican controlled congress during part of his administration? Why didn’t he fix the problem then?

Obama has had all wrong policies, making the problems even worse.

Which makes him blaming Bush (and those who defend him blaming Bush) even more ridiculous. Bush’s (and congress at that time’s) policies weren’t good, but I’m sure there are a lot of people who would rather go back to those than continue with Obama’s policies.

to answer a few of Rattler’s points.
Bush had majorities, but not a filibuster proof pairing. Freddie and Fannie were in trouble and in hearings, Mad Frank was blocking any reforms there ” I don’t see where there is any problem” (paraphrased as he said it often in various forms) so GWB never got the few things he knew were bad fixed. He did not have 0bama’s filibuster proof majorities.
On the rest of the garbage, after losing the majorities, Bush was signing Dem written bills, and wasn’t a big VETO man…so he signed some rather pork laden and just plain bad bills. Granted he gets credit for signing, but if he didn’t see poorly written trash he couldn’t sign it, could he?
Then, his “last” budget 0bama “inherited” was voted out by Harry and Nancy, loaded for boar, and then … withheld until 0bama was in office and he signed it. Contrary to what a fool on a now defunct blog was want to claim, it can’t be properly credited to Bush if he could never sign or VETO it. But when you look at the budgets and Deficits the last year of Bush, though listed under his term, it was not much his fault ( except that which he added when signing stupid bills like TARP which not only didn’t work, but was wanted by the Dems and folks like Levi so complaining about Bush’s deficits while demanding the bills causing them be passed and signed just goes to reinforce the fact dems are the ultimate hypocrites)

So, after Romney gets in (please, please) we can hope he gets better Repub majorities, and then we need to ride the fools to make sure they toe the line and don’t try to pass trash, like 0care and Amnesty (which was killed because even though GWB wanted it, the people did not and were loud and boisterous enough to prevent that.)

Also, didn’t Bush have a Republican controlled congress during part of his administration? Why didn’t he fix the problem then?

The first 2 years the senate was controlled by the democrats. The middle 4 years were controlled by the GOP and the last 2 years both houses were controlled by the democrats.

Obama in his first 2 years had a democrat controlled house and senate.

He still managed to screw things up.

One sense I had when Obama was in the senate and a criticism brought up is that he was mostly absent from most legislation. He appears to also be absent as president.

I will also say that Obama has some vision of what he wants, but he has no talent for application. He just doesn’t seem to want to do the work needed to create legislation.

He also was all flowery about bipartisanship, but that pretty much died the minute he uttered the words “I won” when the GOP asked about the stimulus.

Obama is a petulant, spoiled brat who seems to think he is owed the presidency. He hasn’t even made a case for re-election other than “Look Mitt is an awful man” and I am amazed people will still vote for this man.

That’s fair. And Bush, to his discredit, responded to that first with “stimulus” (early 2008), then with bailouts – both of which Obama later increased (i.e., worsened).

Also, didn’t Bush have a Republican controlled congress during part of his administration? Why didn’t he fix the problem then?

Right, that’s why I said what I said. Bush had a GOP congress through 2006. They increased domestic spending year after year – by just about the amount of the deficit, in the end. They should not have. Then the Dems took over Congress and spent still more. As regards the housing bubble: Bush’s plans to reform Freddie and Fannie were thwarted by about 1/3 of the Republicans, plus virtually all of the Democrats.

oh, yeah, and when he did have the majorities, far too often the republicans got carried away and did over do things. The “Bipartisan” bills being the worst … McCain/Feingold as one example (just one of the many reasons I was not a McCain man, as I am not a Romney man) Amnesty another … and why many conservatives stayed home in 2006. Sadly even with the heavy spending republicans we were reducing the deficits until the dems took over after the 06 elections. This eventually helped in the house as some of those who decided to let the dem position on Freddie/Fannie sway them were gone. We got some more fiscal/COTUS conservative reps in during 2010 and even a few closer to conservatives in more liberal places (ala Brown, though Ma is ignorant and may replace him with a demonstrably ignorant lying fake indian)

Well, another reason Bush didn’t fix the mistakes was because, on domestic policy, Bush was a liberal progressive.

- Vast expansion in education funding. Check.
- Support of home ownership as an entitlement. Check.
- Vast expansion of Government Health Care. Check.

Everywhere Bush failed it was where he pursued liberal, progressive, Big Government policies; the policies people like Levi praise and salivate over when Obama or Pelosi push them. Bush is indeed to be faulted for pursuing a progressive agenda.

Which is why no one named Bush should ever be allowed to be president again.

The first 2 years the senate was controlled by the democrats (doesn’t anyone remember Jumpin Jim Jeffords?).

And Bush miraculously enough managed to pass legislation during those 2 years with bipartisan support.

The democrats like to blame the GOP controlled house for current stalemates, but the real problem is that Reid is an asshole who won’t bring anything to the floor for a vote (they haven’t passed a budget during Obama’s presidency and a budget only needs simple majority-the house has passed 6, the house has passed numerous jobs bills, the senate hasn’t done anything etc). It also doesn’t help that Obama believes “I won” means he doesn’t have to work with the GOP or compromise.

I won’t argue that every piece of legislation passed by Bush and the GOP controlled congress was awesome and I also think at times the congress was a bit quick to spend money.

However, if you look at appropriations the spending didn’t get out of control until 2006 when guess who took over congress?

Everywhere Bush failed it was where he pursued liberal, progressive, Big Government policies

Yup. And where Bush succeeded, it was where he pursued the opposite.

Jumpin Jim Jeffords

Oh, yeah. I stand corrected.

the spending didn’t get out of control until 2006 when guess who took over congress?

As I said, the Dem Congress accelerated the spending – made it worse. But I would argue, spending was already out of control when Bush first took it beyond the Clinton-era practices. Perhaps we disagree slightly, on the meaning of “out of control”.

(And I mean domestic / non-defense spending. I don’t begrudge Bush anything he spent to keep America safe. Lefties like to blow the latter out of proportion. But actually, if Bush could have just kept domestic / non-defense spending in line with 1990s budgets, his deficits would have been a lot smaller and would have disappeared, in some years.)

ILC I really don’t disagree. Bush was a compassionate conservative which in my opinion generally means a conservative who also likes to spend money on social programs. I also don’t think every social program is necessarily bad spending.

I think when it comes to spending one problem liberals and many conservatives both have is over spending and trying to do more than necessary to fix a problem where targeted spending would do. I think the whole medicare fix is a great example. I think there was a problem, but rather than think of ways to target the actual problem, Bush with bipartisan efforts created a larger, expensive program than necessary.

I think Bush wanted to pass programs and wanted to pass them with bipartisan support and efforts-which often meant spending more money.

[...] campaign, like his presidency has not brought the post-partisan healing he promised. Instead, it has exacerbated the nation’s divisions. Should the Democrat win, George Will quipped, “Mr. Obama will have a mandate not to be [...]

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**